Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories hold on against an SNP challenge in Scotland but lo
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories hold on against an SNP challenge in Scotland but lose 2 seats to the LDs in England
Highland on Perth and Kinross (Con defence) Result: Con 1,907 (47% +2% on last time), Lab 239 (6% no candidate last time), Lib Dem 78 (2% -1% on last time), Green 104 (3% -1% on last time), Ind (Taylor) 280 (7%), Ind (Baykal) 12 (0%), SNP 1,466 (36% +1% on last time) Conservative lead over SNP of 441 (9%) on a swing of 0.5% from SNP to Con Total Independent vote: 292 (7% -4% on last time) No candidate elected on first count, Baykal (Independent) elminated Details of further counts not published save Conservative HOLD
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The Warrington Greens must be wondering why they bothered.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/94529/watch-alan-johnson-says-windrush-landing-cards
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/986977664731942912?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw==&refsrc=email&iid=fa06ea2ee9404cdd854304673094f346&uid=65433010&nid=244+272699400
Long way to the next election but that seat continues to look very vulnerable.
They are making Priti and Esther look moderate.
'The previous government made the decision.'
'I only make policy; they decide operational matters.'
Lord Carrington resigned from the F.Office as a matter of honour when the Falklands were invaded. That's the way to do it.
Using the Carrington code of honour, Johnson was arguably responsible for the decision and May was responsible for its execution ... or for reconsidering it, given that destroying the last copy of something is a pretty major matter.
Income tax records aren't destroyed for 100 years are they? Now they're digital, the Revenue probably has people responsible for transferring the scanned images to new storage media at regular intervals. I fail to see why immigration records aren't as important.
It's a grand, all-party cockup.
Latest on Windrush: Alan Johnson says landing cards decision was made in 2009
Alan Johnson: "It was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency"
The decision to destroy the landing cards for Windrush migrants was taken under Labour, former home secretary Alan Johnson has said.
Asked if he knew about the 2009 decision, he told the BBC: "No, it was an administrative decision taken by the UK Border Agency."
The cards were then destroyed in 2010, when Theresa May was home secretary.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and Mrs May clashed over the issue at prime minister's questions.
On Wednesday, Mr Corbyn accused the government of being "callous and incompetent" and asked if Mrs May, then home secretary, had "signed off" on the decision to destroy the landing cards which was now "causing such pain and such stress to a whole generation" of Windrush migrants.
She replied that the decision had been taken under the previous Labour government in 2009.
Mr Johnson suggested that Mr Corbyn had been "misled" over the issue: "The previous evening, as I understand it... Number 10 were briefing that this happened in 2010.
"What she had up her sleeve, whether it was deliberate or whatever - all's fair in love and Prime Minister's Questions - was that the decision was taken under us."
Politics Hey
A counsel of perfection might be that before the Government puts extremely onerous obligations on people to document themselves they might reflect on what documentation they have themselves and what they might have had but for prior decisions (of whatever government). Going even further into my fantasy such a hypothetical minister might reflect whether it is terribly fair to ask people to produce records from a time when the government itself has got rid of them.
Tories, out, out, out!!!!!
With Windrush where was the Home Offices moral compass?
I have a separate concern about whether a civilised society thinks it is a good idea to have hundreds of thousands of residents outside the law and vulnerable to exploitation by preventing them from carrying out normal activities but, even in respect of your point of principle, the first stage was really essential and it was political cowardice not to do it.
It's not even a difficult problem to deal with - you could allow anyone who has lived in this country for a decade or so to stay. In fact that used to be the case before it too was abolished by Theresa May
This has been going on under successive governments and speaks more about the hopelessness of the Home Office as a bureaucratic institution.
If there is good to come out of this the Windrush scandal will be resolved and with compensation but lessons must be learned.
It is noticeable that the BBC, Sky and the Guardian have all appealing for victims to tell them their stories but there seems to be a reduction in reporting which again indicates the issue is being addressed. I would think Amber Rudd is on this 24/7 as her career depends on it. Amazing that Corbyn's incompetence likely saved Rudd her job
But can a lawyer tell us why most civil offences have a 6 year time limit but one can be pursued for a breach of immigration law after 60? People who've lived here without objection for 6 years or so should be allowed to stay indefinitely, although they might have to prove it to a tribunal.
The Democrats need to accept Clinton was hopeless and get someone who can beat Trump
And it is then possible to apply for citizenship.
But it has got much more difficult. Any gaps of documentation are seized upon and there is an aggressive attitude of disbelief. Making the application is hazardous. You risk expulsion. Some prefer to stay under the radar.
Vegetable-based products such as soya steaks or vegetarian sausages marketed as meat substitutes are to be banned in France for "misleading" consumers.
Food producers will no longer be able to use "steak", "sausage" or any other meat term to describe products that are not partly or wholly made up of meat.
The measure will also apply to vegetarian or vegan products marketed as dairy alternatives.
In Geneva in Switzerland, when they changed the law to be more focused on the enablers of illegal immigration (employers and landlords), they combined it with an amnesty programme. If you'd been in the country for a decade, without having run afoul of the law, then you could get a work permit, renewable annually (so long as you also abided by the rules on health insurance, etc.)
At a managementt meeting with the Home Office and Border Staff, I asked why the Police were doing all this administration.As the list of countries having to register , and those that did not made no sense.
For example , Pakistan did not have to register , Brazil did.
I was told it was to political to change it.
So in these times of police cuts , we were wasting our resources on a pointless exercise.As we never had the time to check addresses etc of the foreign students.
I even wrote to the Home Office many years ago, never got a reply.
My solution, which is hardly original, is to take at least half a million people out of the system by allowing them to apply for and get an amnesty on much easier terms and with a less critical look at the documentation than we have now. The resources can then be focussed on the newer cases so they can be processed and acted upon before life gets too complicated. I don't see anything warm or fuzzy about that. I see practicality.
But this was a different era, they were waved in the door as children with the requirements of the time, and perhaps did not think any more of it until it was too late to get the documents from older family members. I don't see it as just being applicable to Windrush afro-carribeans either, this surely could also apply to South Asians and perhaps even colonial born abroad returnees from the same era. (not that my thinking would ever be 'it's just foreigners' but to consider that people who consider themselves white British and nothing else might be affected is food for thought).
Mum Rata was born abroad of British parents, had a fairly complicated upbringing of remarriages, adoptions, name changes, country changes and a trail of poor certificate copies, and only regularised herself with passports in the early 2000s, a process that took well on for 2 years for her to complete.
If she had not seen it through then, had one of my father's episodes been worse, I cannot be sure at all that my white British parent would not have been in the cross hairs of the home office.
When Charles becomes King though I suspect he'll be sufficiently worried about keeping the UK onside. I hope his advisors are suggesting that he basically does nothing in a sustained way. Somehow he's got into a position where he'll be the unwanted King - I've never met anyone who claims to be a fan of his. I'm pretty sure this is dreadfully unfair on him. He may well be better at the Kinging lark than his mother for example. She though has the benefit of simply shaping our expectations to simply be what she does.
Furthermore, the cause of a country’s trade deficit lies at home. A trade deficit is the result of a country consuming more than it produces, and it is neither caused nor cured by trade restrictions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/singapores-prime-minister-nobody-wants-a-trade-war/2018/04/18/64d9fa30-431e-11e8-ad8f-27a8c409298b_story.html?utm_term=.1fcde6c3c365
That said, I don't disagree with you.
55. When Liz Windsor pops her clogs that Chuck gets the gig.
might have been considered a tad insensitive.
The media really are poor.
The more you delve into Mrs May's past at the Home Office the murkier it gets. The problem with Corbyn's performance is that he's given her a free ride. All this sackcloth and ashes stuff over Labour's anti-Semitism-which was never going to fly because people didn't buy it-was a monumental mistake. Mrs May who should now be on the verge of committing hara-kiri looks like she could get away with it
And I see the BBC are now saying the same.
I'd like it if we could find something pretty substantial to recognise the Queen's achievements. I'd suggest we immediately develop a space colony and call it Elizabeth (Underground lines aren't quite up to it).
I'm very far from being a monarchist though.
She has announced Charles succeeds the Queen - so that is confirmed
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/michael-cohen-and-the-end-stage-of-the-trump-presidency
(I've laid lots of 2018 Trump exit, and a very small amount of 2019. I think laying at 10-1 on 2018 remains close to free money, but am increasingly nervous about 2019.)
I’d suggest twice yearly, not biannually.